Microsoft tried to appease disgruntled customers on Thursday with news lower Windows 7 upgrade prices as well as a concession that lets owners of the now 8-year-old Windows XP move up to the new operating system at a lower price.

The company settled the uneasy question of how it would price its next-generation OS on Thursday by detailing the costs for the three Windows 7 editions customers are likely to see in stores.

In a bid to placate those upset by elevated Vista pricing, some versions of Windows 7 will be less expensive than Vista has been in the past. At retail, a Home Premium upgrade will cost $120 -- $40 less than it did when Vista was new -- while its stand-alone version has dropped a similar amount to $200. Buying a copy of Professional will cost the same $200 (upgrade) or $300 (full) as it has in the past, but Windows 7 Ultimate will cost $220 to upgrade versus the $260 for Vista Ultimate in 2007. A full copy of the new Ultimate release costs $320 versus $400 two years ago.

Moreover, those eager enough to pre-order the new OS before it ships on October 22nd can pay even less. Starting Friday, advance orders for Windows 7 Home Premium and Professional upgrades will cost just $50 and $100 each in the US and should last until July 11th or until stock runs dry. Many PC vendors, including HP, will also offer upgrades to Windows 7 for free or for a small cost on any PC sold from Friday until Windows 7 comes preloaded on the new computers.

And in a rare gesture for Microsoft, the company will allow those using the now two generations old Windows XP to use an upgrade copy rather than pay full retail. However, due to the change in architectures between Windows XP and 7, buyers will have to perform a clean install rather than the in-place upgrade Vista owners can use.

Both the smaller price tags and the XP extension have already been seen as near-mandatory concessions for the Redmond, Washington to regain acceptance. After early reports of poor compatibility and slow performance, many home users and businesses alike have often chosen to remain with the 2001 operating system rather than upgrade to Vista, even after Microsoft insisted that its Service Pack 1 update addressed many early issues. Vista pricing was slashed in early 2008 partly to underscore the point.

The Windows developer also took to an elaborate, $300 million ad campaign that both sought to put Windows back in the public consciousness and turn attention to hardware pricing versus Apple's Macs instead of promoting the operating system itself.

Whether a sincere gesture to regain customer loyalty or not, the pricing makes Apple's Mac OS X Snow Leopard upgrades a better deal for those considering upgrade pricing as a factor. As the update will ship for just $29 and a month earlier than Windows 7, it's expected that a larger percentage of the Mac user base will be running Snow Leopard early on than PC users will rush to install Windows 7.

And in a rare gesture for Microsoft, the company will allow those using the now two generations old Windows XP to use an upgrade copy rather than pay full retail. However, due to the change in architectures between Windows XP and 7, buyers will have to perform a clean install rather than the in-place upgrade Vista owners can use.

It's not a rare gesture. It's always been this way, and the same thing happened with Windows Vista. If you had XP installed, you could directly upgrade to Vista, otherwise if you had Windows Me/2000 required you to wipe your system. Anything before Windows Me required a retail version to install, period.

Why should you pay for something that you would not want to have? I'm sorry, but I cannot see why anyone could be interested in buying yet another inferior OS product - seems like a waste of space to write about the sky-high prices of nonsense software.

And . . . so is the rest of the market [having PCs to keep their options open] for some reason.

Yup, ATI+AMD Windows Vista SP1 Ultimate 64-bit "gaming rig" here. And XP2 on Parallels on MacBook Alu 2.0ghz. When Windows 7 RC2 comes out I'd probably put it on Parallels on my MacBook. No BootCamp needed, since I have my desktop PC for all gaming matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTripper

What about everyone who bought the $399 botch job called Vista and now have to pay more to get the fixed version?

Just because Microsoft changed the name from Vista SP3 to Windows 7 doesn't justify a extra $219 to upgrade.

That's a whopping $618 for a working operating system.

God, I hope I can install Vista+Windows 7 in a VM and keep my Vista VM activated.

FSCK you Microsoft. First time in 20 something years I tried your crap and now I know why everyone hates you.

Been a happy Mac user for most of my life in the meanwhile.

LOL. First time in 20 something years. It hasn't gone very far, this Windoze thing. Actually, Win 2000 and XP2 have been the key accomplishments in the past 10 years (Windows 98 and ME was absolute garbage, as is overbloated bullshit Vista 32bit). Office 2003 was the last decent MS Office (2007 being, again, overbloated nonsense).

Windows 7 may return to the "glory days" of XP2 (LOL) but we'll see with the drivers and whether 64 bit will ever take off. With 4GB of RAM becoming ultra-affordable, seeing PC users not moving out of XP bit or Vista 32bit, or, going Windows 7 but 32 bit (and hence seeing only 3GB of RAM) --- is going to be epic funny.

They have been for about 8 years now. I'm not sure that Windows 7 will really do anything to change that. Sometimes the hurt just runs too deep.

But one can always hope.

I dont see this as a gamer changer. Mac OS X has always been lower priced than retail copies of the higher-end versions of Windows. I dont think most of that makes a difference to majority of Windows users who typically buy a new PC with an OEM version of Windows pre-installed. I think the Mac adoption rate will be about the same and MS will still be making huge profits for years to come.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

lol. What does that even mean? You macboys are out of control stupid. It makes sense though, since Apples entire campaign is focused on how their user base can barely figure out how to turn on a computer.

lol. What does that even mean? You macboys are out of control stupid. It makes sense though, since Apples entire campaign is focused on how their user base can barely figure out how to turn on a computer.

Great laughs here keep em coming.

It means you pcboys are bending over yet again by forking out even more money for even more beta testing of service packs by Microshaft.

Call me a macboy, I use a Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit PC for gaming. But for everything else, guess what! A Mac is great and suits my needs (read: yes it actually turns on, enters sleep/ hibernate mode easily, and runs multiple demanding apps without hitches, and seamlessly moves between 32bit and 64bit, and comes with all the drivers...! Wow this means I now knothing about computers OMFG)

[QUOTE "Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two? "Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions" If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!"[/QUOTE]

Seriously, some of us, because of our ((investment) programs are forced to use Windows. (and I mean forced!) Anyway, as a Mac user since the 128k, I always upgrade to the latest-beta or not. So I''m running W7 RC in Parallels. I like it better than XP (It's closer to Apple System 7 than XP, so they are only a decade or two away from OSX.) Apple's pricing of 10.6 definitely influenced MS marketing-since they have always tried to copy Apple since 1984.( Their copies are always more complex than the originals?)
Speaking of 1984, check out this quote from clueless MicroSoft's Brad Brooks- it is twisted, misdirecting, spun NewSpeak!
"Even their chief software architect called (Snow Leopard) an upgrade of Leopard," Brooks said. "The way I look at it, its a service pack and we don't charge for service packs." Right!!! Unlike a true revolutionary Apple upgrade, MS spins badboy Vista's upgrade and calls it Windows 7, so they can charge for it! What a world!

"Why do these articles keep comparing pricing between OSX and Windows. Why would someone owning a Mac even consider the two? "Hmm, I could upgrade to snow leopard... or I could put Windows 7 on my Mac, decisions decisions" If you have a Mac, I doubt you are debating which OS to put on it. If you have a PC, well price doesn't matter because you would have to buy a Mac anyways. So WHO CARES!"

Seriously, some of us, because of our ((investment) programs are forced to use Windows. (and I mean forced!) Anyway, as a Mac user since the 128k, I always upgrade to the latest-beta or not. So I''m running W7 RC in Parallels. I like it better than XP (It's closer to Apple System 7 than XP, so they are only a decade or two away from OSX.) Apple's pricing of 10.6 definitely influenced MS marketing-since they have always tried to copy Apple since 1984.( Their copies are always more complex than the originals?)
Speaking of 1984, check out this quote from clueless MicroSoft's Brad Brooks- it is twisted, misdirecting, spun NewSpeak!
"Even their chief software architect called (Snow Leopard) an upgrade of Leopard," Brooks said. "The way I look at it, its a service pack and we don't charge for service packs." Right!!! Unlike a true revolutionary Apple upgrade, MS spins badboy Vista's upgrade and calls it Windows 7, so they can charge for it! What a world!

Yeah. Something about paying $29 for a Service Pack that actually does something useful (Snow Leopard), than paying over $100 for a Service Pack (Windows 7) that may or may not have any tangible benefits... Hmm, let's see, which one should I choose... Like I said, I'll run Windows 7 RC2 or RC3 in Parallels and win for me.

Like I said as well, Windows 7 may be interesting because then I might actually never, ever have to touch Vista ever in my life again.

it's expected that a larger percentage of the Mac user base will be running Snow Leopard early on than PC users will rush to install Windows 7.

Yeah, try a larger number of Mac users will be running Snow Leopard a month after the update than Windows users will be running Windows 7.

Everyone already knows that Mac users tend to upgrade much more rapidly and at a much higher rate than PC users. E.g., there are about 3x Leopard users now as there are Tiger users, and there are still amost 3x XP users as there are Vista users. And XP is WAAAAAY older than Tiger, and Leopard is newer than Vista.

It's not a rare gesture. It's always been this way, and the same thing happened with Windows Vista. If you had XP installed, you could directly upgrade to Vista, otherwise if you had Windows Me/2000 required you to wipe your system. Anything before Windows Me required a retail version to install, period.

At first, they were saying that you couldn't upgrade from XP to Win 7, so this is a concession to all of those who never did upgrade to Vista.

I'm also wondering if some of these discounts, particularly the $50 pre-orders have anything to do with a response to 10.6's $29 upgrade pricing.

[QUOTE
Like I said as well, Windows 7 may be interesting because then I might actually never, ever have to touch Vista ever in my life again."

In order not to violate any patents or blatant appearance of outright theft, MS chooses to call their upgrades a Service Pack, because they have never really upgraded anything. The garbage, over-bloated code that they modified from DOS is still in that even more huge trash bag software they've been toten' around since the early days. When I have to make any simple changes using Windows, I really need an Ice Pack!
Look in the Windows system folder
>?????msdaosp.dll, sqloledb.dll, OLE DB, WAB32, ado,..... what is this crap???<

It means you pcboys are bending over yet again *** by forking out even more money for even more beta testing of service packs by Microshaft.

Call me a macboy, I use a Vista Ultimate SP1 64bit PC for gaming. But for everything else, guess what! A Mac is great and suits my needs (read: yes it actually turns on, enters sleep/ hibernate mode easily, and runs multiple demanding apps without hitches, and seamlessly moves between 32bit and 64bit, and comes with all the drivers...! Wow this means I now knothing about computers OMFG)

Windows 7 Pricing has NOTHING to do with Apple. The only reason this is posted that I can see is for MS hating.

And if you ask me, that looks VERY poorly on the Apple community from others. MS community hates Apple too... so Apple guys, "Think Different" and just ignore the pest.

That being said, raise of hands, how many of you are going to buy and install Win7 on your Macs? Seems like a lot of people I know that have Macs, ALSO buy windows to run on it. So in that regard, yes this affects you.

Lets focus on Apple okay? Can anyone tell me when FCS3 is coming out and if it will support the CUDA / GrandCentral scheme?